[ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study -
HealthyWorker Effect
Syd H. Levine
syd.levine at mindspring.com
Wed Mar 16 20:50:22 CET 2005
You already sent me copies. I did not say anybody was biased, just that
Long's detractors seem more desperate to mine the data for some little shred
of evidence to support LNT. Since hormesis is a common effect in nature,
why would anyone assume LNT makes sense? If the precautionary principle and
LNT had always ruled, we would not have RDAs for vitamins.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com>; <John_Sukosky at dom.com>
Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study -
HealthyWorker Effect
> Sounds like you calling Long's detractors biased.
> Interesting when you look at all of the data have has
> been accumulated. You may want to start with NCRP
> Report 136. Of course, Long comment that he discounts
> the McGregor and Land article of 1977 does speak
> volumes of his bias. I do not claim to be an expert
> on the subject, but I do question those who are deaf
> critism of the studies they cite. For example, the
> study of the Taiwanese apartment dwellers has been
> questioned as to the cohort population. If you ignore
> this point, what are you advocating? Poor science?
>
> Again, if you would like copies of the article so you
> can review it yourself, let me know.
>
> --- "Syd H. Levine" <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Long's detractors seem far more desperate with
>> respect to massaging the data
>> than he does. If LNT were correct, and ionizing
>> radiation is as dangerous
>> as some urge, the Taiwan apartment dwellers, the air
>> crews, the radiation
>> oncologists, radiographers, etc. would be one bunch
>> of sick puppies, but
>> they do not seem to be. Instead, Long's detractors
>> seem only to be able to
>> make reference to selected portions of very few
>> studies to support LNT.
>> What is it that I am not getting here as a mostly
>> lay observer?
>>
>> Syd H. Levine
>> AnaLog Services, Inc.
>> Phone: 270-276-5671
>> Telefax: 270-276-5588
>> E-mail: analog at logwell.com
>> URL: www.logwell.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
>> To: <John_Sukosky at dom.com>
>> Cc: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:18 PM
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: U.S. Nuclear Power Industry
>> Workers Study -
>> HealthyWorker Effect
>>
>>
>> >I agree, but I misread your comments.
>> >
>> > What you suggest is the what is usually done, or
>> > should be done. However, that is often not.
>> There
>> > was a recent "study" of people who lived in
>> apartments
>> > in Taiwan that were made with Co-60 contaminated
>> > steel. The comment was that the cancer rate of
>> these
>> > individuals compared to the general population was
>> > low. Again, there are probable a number of
>> > confounding factors that enter into the
>> statistics,
>> > and the best way to do the study would be to use a
>> > cohort of apartment dwellers in buildings without
>> the
>> > contaminated steel. Further, if you look at the
>> > Japanese atomic bomb studies, the cohort is those
>> who
>> > probably received little or not radiation
>> exposure,
>> > but were in the cities at that time.
>> >
>> > http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq8
>> >
>> > --- John_Sukosky at dom.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree that since many factors differ between
>> the
>> >> worker
>> >> population and general population, interpretation
>> of
>> >> these
>> >> results is limited to calling it a "healthy
>> worker
>> >> effect".
>> >>
>> >> That's why I asked why a comparison cannot be
>> made
>> >> to
>> >> non-nuclear power plant workers employed during
>> the
>> >> same
>> >> period in order to account for the degree of the
>> >> healthy
>> >> worker effect. Wouldn't that adjust for the
>> major
>> >> confounders between the worker population and
>> >> general
>> >> population? That way we may be better able to
>> >> observe
>> >> an obvious benefit or harm due to ionizing
>> >> radiation.
>> >>
>> >> John M. Sukosky, CHP
>> >> Dominion
>> >> Surry Power Station
>> >> (757)-365-2594 (Tieline: 8-798-2594)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> John Jacobus
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <crispy_bird at yaho
>> To:
>> >> John_Sukosky at dom.com, radsafe
>> >> <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>> >> o.com>
>> cc:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sent by:
>> >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Nuclear Power
>> >> Industry Workers Study - Table 2
>> >> radsafe-bounces at r
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> adlab.nl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 03/16/2005 10:39
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> AM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Simply stated, the worker population does not
>> >> represent the general population. Consider the
>> >> absence of breast cancers. Ergo, no or few women
>> >> workers. Also, how many of the workers are under
>> 18
>> >> or over 65?
>> >>
>> >> --- John_Sukosky at dom.com wrote:
>> >> > Below, I've reproduced Table 2 from the
>> "Analysis
>> >> of
>> >> > the
>> >> > Mortality Experience amongst U.S. Nuclear Power
>> >> > Industry
>> >> > Workers after Chronic Low-Dose Exposure to
>> >> Ionizing
>> >> > Radiation".
>> >> > (Howe, et al., 2004)
>> >> >
>> >> > Based on these results, the authors stated
>> that:
>> >> > "...The cohort
>> >> > displays a very substantial healthy worker
>> >> effect,
>> >> > i.e.,
>> >> > considerably lower cancer and noncancer
>> mortality
>> >> > than the
>> >> > general population...".
>> >> >
>> >> > Does anyone know why a comparison cannot be
>> made
>> >> to
>> >> > non-nuclear
>> >> > power plant workers employed during the same
>> >> period
>> >> > in order to
>> >> > account for this "very substantial healthy
>> worker
>> >> > effect"?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > John M. Sukosky, CHP
>> >> > Dominion
>> >> > Surry Power Station
>> >> > (757)-365-2594 (Tieline: 8-798-2594)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > TABLE 2
>> >> > U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Workers Study (Howe
>> et
>> >> > al., 2004):
>> >> > Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) by Cause
>> of
>> >> > Death, 1979ââ,¬â?o1997
>> >> >
>> >> > Cause Observed
>> >> > Expected(a) SMR 95%CI
>> >> > All causes 1,190
>> 2922.4
>> >> > 0.41 0.38, 0.43
>> >> > All solid cancers 368
>> 564.3
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
> enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
>
More information about the radsafe
mailing list